Skip to main content

tv   House Session  CSPAN  May 14, 2015 5:30pm-9:01pm EDT

5:30 pm
e gentlelady from indiana reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady from indiana. mrs. walorski: i yield one minute to mr. royce. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. royce: i rise in support of this amendment. i already expressed my deep concern for the rushed, almost frenzied manner in which the administration is emptying the detention center at guantanamo bay. we saw the dangerous taliban five transfer. just this past december, the administration released six guantanamo bay detainees to the small south american country of uraguay. these six detainees had been trained in munitions and document forgery. in quiet negotiations with them to take the six, the obama administration offered the president of uraguay reassurances that none of them had ever been involved in conducting or facilitating terrorist activities. . throwing out with a stroke of a
5:31 pm
pen the analysis that had led to their detention. these six former terrorists live only six blocks away from the u.s. embassy which forced the embassy to heighten its security posture. the obama administration effectively prioritized its political goal of closing guantanamo over our national security interests. the administration's best -- desperation to empty guantanamo has caused six hardened terrorists to land dangerously close to an embassy in our hemisphere. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from indiana is recognized. mrs. walorski: i yield one minute to my colleague from montana. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. zinke: i rise in support of
5:32 pm
this amendment. i spent years as a navy seal. most of the last years of my service was spent hunting killing, or capturing those who had american blood on their hands. i had the honor of leading special operations troops in hunting these dangerous assailants and bringing them to justice. releasing terrorists from guantanamo bay who have committed killing american citizens, not only is a national security risk but it's also a slap in the face to every american every man every woman who died in the battlefield to put them there. the president insists the terrorists are reformed. the facts say different. according to the director of national intelligence, nearly 30% of former gitmo detainees are confirmed or suspected of engaging in terrorist activities. the majority remain at large. a catch and release program may work for trout in montana but it
5:33 pm
doesn't work for terrorists. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from indiana, her time has expired. mrs. walorski: thank you mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized, the gentleman has 45 seconds. mr. smilt: i yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 45 seconds. mr. nadler: thank you, mr. speaker. it is truly astonishing that in 2015, the united states continues to hold people indefinitely who have not been charged, let alone convicted, of any crime, who have been judged not to pose a threat to the united states. continuing to hold these people without trial is a rebuke to our notion of liberty. some of these people are terrorist bus some are not they have been judged not to be a threat to the united states. some of them may be victim of the fact that we give bounties to people who say they turn in
5:34 pm
terrorists. the hatfields turned in the mccoys because why not? we were giving them a few thousand dollars. we have supermax prisons in the united states from which no one has ever escaped. there's no reason to spend the money in guantanamo and have this continuing shame on the reputation of the united states. i oppose this amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from indiana. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed. -- agreed to. mrs. walorski: i request a vorded -- a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceed option the amendment offered by the gentlelady from indiana will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 16 printed in house report 114-112.
5:35 pm
for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. smith: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 16 printed in house report 114-12, offered by mr. smith of washington. the chair: the gentleman from washington, mr. smith, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself 2 1/2 minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. smith: this amendment would take out of the bill all of the things that are in it that make it impossible to close guantanamo bay prison. this is a debate we've had many times, the provisions are typically banning any transfers to the u.s., banning any construction in the u.s., of any facilities to house the folks being housed right now in guantanamo. it strips out those two and it also asks the president to give us a detailed plan on how he would go about closing guantanamo and what he would do with the inmates that are there
5:36 pm
now and requires a 90-day notice period to congress before any action could be take on that. and it is basically the same argument that i just made as to why we should close guantanamo. it was opened in the first place as a way to try to get around the u.s. constitution. basically the thought was since it wasn't in the continental u.s. habeas corpus and other protections wouldn't apply. but the supreme court a number of years ago said it is effectively under u.s. control so no, all the same rules apply system of one argument that's frequently frot out is that somehow if they're brought to the u.s. they would suddenly have constitutional rights they don't have in guantanamo. the supreme court has already ruled on that. they have ruled that it is effectively under u.s. control and the exact same rights, the habeas corpus and other rights that a criminal or prisoner of war would have. so bringing -- bringing them to
5:37 pm
the united states would not be a problem. we have an alternative to guantanamo. it's not like there's no option. there are now, i believe 122 inmates, i forget the exact number, who have been cleared for transfer back to another country. but it's somewhere roughly half that amount. we'd be looking at between 50 and 60 inmates to transfer to the united states. we have the facilities here. as i said, we already house some of the most dangerous terrorists who have ever arrested and convicted. we have the facilities, we have the ability to hold them safety leer. -- here system of there is an alternative. the current situation in guantanamo bay has a number of negatives. the high costs, as i mentioned, several times almost $3 million an inmate. then the international eyesore that guantanamo bay is. not just to terrorists. i don't care about them or care what they say or how they feel about us holding people at guantanamo. but to our allies in europe, to people in the ashe world who want to help us defeat the -- in
5:38 pm
the arab world who want to help us defeat the scourge of islamic ex-timism. this is an eye shore we should tissue eyesore we should close and we should make that happen as soon as possible. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> to oppose the amendment. the clerk: the gentleman is recognized. mr. thornberry: i -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. thorn brother: i yield one -- mr. thornberry: i yield one minute to mr. zinke. mr. zinke: i rise to express one soldier's thoughts on closing gitmo. i have no doubt that closing this jeopardizes the safety and security of the united states and our citizens abroad. if the success or the failure of the mission at gitmo is based on the number of attacks against the united states after 9/11, i'm confident everyone in this room would join me in judging
5:39 pm
the mission has been successful. intelligence collection and national security have been strengthened as a result of gitmo and america remains a safer place thanks to the men and women serving there. coaching dangerous terrorists in a military prison and away from american families is the way it should be done. to me, closing gitmo is simply not an option. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield the remaining part of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. mr. thornberry: i'm happy to yield to another speaker to even the time. i'm happy to yield to the distinguished gentlelady from indiana, mrs. walorski. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mrs. walorski: thank you mr. chairman. i oppose this amendment. everything that happened since last year's debate should force us to be more care wfl detainee decisions rather than
5:40 pm
lescareful. the rise of isil, the release of the taliban five, the war in yemen are just a few events that remind office the urningtcy of this debate. potentially most troubling is the growing threat of aqap, al qaeda in the arabian peninsula, enabled by the power vacuum in yemen. aqap was formed by gitmo detainees. mr. chairman, i believe we need a commonsense policy a detainee policy that protects americans. i urge my colleagues to vote no and oppose this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: we have only one more speaker. i know they have the right to close but we'll reserve until they get to the last speaker. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry: i'm happy to yield to the distinguished gentleman from colorado, mr. coffman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. coffman: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise to oppose this amendment. in march of 2014, the director
5:41 pm
of national intelligence reported that 29% of detainees released from guantanamo bay have engaged or were suspected of resuming their roles as terrorists. those who remain in guantanamo are the quote, worst of the worst, unquote, so it is safe to presume that if released, an even higher percentage of them will remain a threat to our national security. i struggle to understand why we would close the fwauntaun moe pay bayh detention camp only to finance the incarceration of enemy combatants within the united states. the need for a place to detain enemy combatants unfortunately will not go away any time soon system of unquestionably, we need a facility like guantanamo. as we engage an enemy with no respect for borders, we must not move them to our maximum security prisons while the courts determine how we should
5:42 pm
legally proceed. for our nation's security, i implore you to vote no on this amendment. thank you, mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry: i yield one minute to the chair of the -- chair of the investigation oversight subcommittee, the gentlelady from missouri, mrs. hartzler. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mrs. hartzler: thank you. i rise in opposition to this amendment. why? there are many reasons. but the predominant reason is it allows the following people to come to america's shore or possibly be released. here's a few people who are in guantanamo bay that the sponsor of this amendment wants to bring here. 16 detainees associated with osama bin laden or other top al qaeda leaders. eight received explosives training, four associated with al qaeda recruiters. two that are knowledgeable about poisons. others involved in a plot against a u.s. embassy volunteer too bad suicide bomber commander of an al qaeda
5:43 pm
training camp. also k.s.m., the architect of the 9/11 attacks. k.s.m.'s third in command. the mastermind of the u.s.s. cole attack. on and on. the idea of bringing these individuals to america is foolish and makes no sense. we already have a secure fa simity that is working, to constitutional and is keeping americans safe. we need to keep gitmo open. i oppose this amendment. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: i yield myself 15 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: the only flaw in that statement is the part about them being released in the u.s. that's not going to happen. if that was the plan i'd be opposed to it. but again, over 300 very dangerous terrorists held in the u.s. right now today. we have proven we can do it here
5:44 pm
. we're not going to bring them here and release them. that's not what i'm arguing for. with that, i yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler. the chair: the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes and a quarter. the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: i thank the chairman for yielding. mr. speaker, i listened to this debate and it sounds as if we have forgotten everything we ever learned about american justice and american liberty. we are told that 29% of the people released from guantanamo have been returned to terror. well that simply says the bush administration did a lousy job in deciding who should be released because since then, it's been a tiny percentage. yes, a large percentage of those the bush administration released became recidivists. so the argument is, everyone held in guantanamo should be held there forever. that's the argument. the amendment we just considered a moment ago would make it even harder, make it impossible, to
5:45 pm
release anyone from guantanamo. the opposition to this amendment is for the same purpose. we are told that these are the worse of the worst -- worst of the worst. who says? some of them have been -- have never been charged with a crime. have never been charged with terrorism. have been judged safe for release and have been told, labeled by our military, as not being terrorists, not being threats to the united states, yet we continue to hold them indefinitely. why? and by what right? k.s.m. is a me nass, indeed he. is he should be brought to the united states, placed on trial in a federal court, he's been waiting for trial for almost 14 years because we can't get our military tribunals to work. put him on trial in an article 3 federal court and sentence him life in prison without parole as others have been. nobody escapes from our super max prisons, justice ought to be done, it ought to be meted out. we're told people will be released here. we're not demanding that even be
5:46 pm
released, or that anyone in particular be released, certainly not to the united states. we are saying the normal processes of justice should go forward. we have saying that the fact that someone lived in afghanistan and other tribe had a grudge against his family and turned him in for a bounty even though he had no ties to terrorism, we ought to know that. and that person ought to be released. because we know that about some people. instead, what we are faced with is a statute that says that nobody ought to ever be released, we ought to hold people indefinitely for life, for no reason. it poses a threat that the president under the authority of the 2012 law can hold americans in guantanamo indefinitely and we should close it to prevent that too. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman are from -- the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. thornberry: i yield myself the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman has a minute and a quarter. mr. thornberry: i don't think anybody says we have to leave
5:47 pm
quan taun moe open forever or keep these folk the detainees there forever. . it is absolutely true we don't know how long this war is going to go. it is also true that if the president came up with a plan that could get the confidence of the american people first about what he would do with the guantanamo detainees then there may be something to talk about, but unfortunately this amendment would strike the provisions of the bill which prevent them from coming to the u.s. which prevents them from being released to war zones, which prevents construction of new facilities and make no mistakes new facilities would have to be built because they can't be co-mingled with inmaints here in the u.s., and it strikes transfers. and then it says, oh by the way, president, give us a plan. how about we have a plan first and see whether that plan stands up to the light of day?
5:48 pm
at one point the president had a plan to take these folks to new york city and have a trial there but there was an uproar. there was a plan to take them to -- a rehabilitative facility in pennsylvania and there was an uproar. i think this amendment should be defeated. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. smith: mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 17 printed in
5:49 pm
house report 114-112. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas mr. mccaul, seek recognition? mr. mccaul: mr. chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 17 printed in house report 114-112 offered by mr. mccaul of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 260, the gentleman from texas, mr. mccaul, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. mccaul: thank you, mr. chair. i yield myself three minutes. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. mccaul: first, i'd like to express my thanks to chairman thornberry for his leadership and hard work on this important legislation. this amendment deals with border security. it's an integral part of our national security, and as we drawdown on our military presence in afghanistan, equipment used successfully in combat can be used to enhance border security at home and in the process save taxpayer dollars.
5:50 pm
today, to protect forward operating bases in afghanistan are now providing situational awareness in the rio grande valley of texas. it has helped agents apprehend aliens or capture drugs in our neighborhoods. we need to get d.o.d. excess equipment by modifying current law last updated in 1996 before the creation of the department of homeland security to provide and a preference for border security activities. this change puts border security and the department of homeland security on equal footing with the department of justice and the office of national drug control policy. with this small change, d.h.s.'s border security components can really tap into d.o.d.'s excess equipment on a preferential basis. in the past the united states customs and border protection have missed out on thousands of
5:51 pm
articles of d.o.d. excess gear because the equipment is often distributed on a first-come-first-serve basis. with the higher priorities, they will have a better opportunity to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a system before acquiring it. my amendment simply brings the law up to date gives d.h.s. the ability to apply military technology for the border security mission. before i close i'd like to address what this amendment does not do. it does not supply local police forces with the equipment recently used in the war zone. it does not militaryize our local law enforcement officials. in fact, if that's a concern, you should support my amendment which will put more military excess in the hands of d.h.s. and finally, mr. chairman, it's important to note to my friends on the other side of the aisle that the administration actually supports the idea posed behind this amendment. the arguments in opposition, i believe, do not withstand
5:52 pm
scrutiny, and with that, mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas, mr. mccaul, reserves his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas, mr. o'rourke, seek recognition? mr. o'rourke: mr. chairman i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. o'rourke: mr. chairman i yield myself two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. o'rourke: mr. chairman i have great respect for my colleague from texas for his leadership and service as the chair of the homeland security committee and had the pleasure of servicing with him on that committee in the last congress, but i rise to oppose this amendment today because it is unnecessary. first of all it is redundant. the department of defense already has the authority to distribute excess military equipment to the department of homeland security and the border patrol. secondly, it's not needed on the border right now. i'll give you some examples. the city that i have the honor of representing, el paso texas, the largest city on the border is the safest city in the united states and it was
5:53 pm
also the safest city when ciudad juarez, the city across, was the most dangerous city in the world. we're spending record amounts, $18 billion a year to secure it. we doubled the size of the border patrol from 10,000 to 20,000 in the last 10 years and we have hundreds of miles of walls. we also heard from the secretary of the department of homeland security, the director of the national counterterrorism center and the director of the f.b.i. that there is not now nor has there ever been a credible terrorist threat on our southern border. so we do not need mine resistant ambush protected vehicles, we do not need grenade launchers, we do not need drones. mr. speaker, we do not need to militarize our borders. the chair: the gentleman from texas, mr. mccaul, is recognized. mr. mccaul: with all due respect to my colleague, the customs and border patrol requested for this equipment.
5:54 pm
the chair now -- i recognize the gentleman from florida mr. nugent, for one minute. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized for one minute. mr. neugebauer: i thank mr. mccaul for -- mr. nugent: i thank mr. mccaul for this amendment. this is based on a misconception that expands eligibility for surplus military equipment to include border security. customs and border patrol are already authorized to receive this equipment. it would just elevate their priority to where justice department is in allowing them to receive the equipment that they need. listen i was a sheriff in the 1033 program, provided equipment as it would exactly to customs and border patrol. it does not -- it does not provide armed drones. everything that they receive is demilitarize to the fact they aren't receiving tanks, no
5:55 pm
military equipment that fires a rocket or given rockets. es that a misconception that others have tried to move forward. listen border security activities are the front lines of counternarcotics and counterterrorism. before those threats hit the american airspace, american waters soil and i support this amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas, mr. mccaul reserves. the gentleman from texas, mr. o'rourke, is recognized. mr. o'rourke: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield 1 1/2 minutes to mr. johnson from georgia. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to this amendment. it's deja vu all over again. it's a republican effort to militaryize our border by funneling military equipment to local law enforcement anywhere in the country for border security activities. the 1033 program transfers billions of dollars of military equipment to law enforcement
5:56 pm
agencies without any congressional oversight or community input. this amendment adds a border security activities priority to the program that will quietly funnel military-grade weaponry to law enforcement for this poorly defined priority. passage of this amendment means that any law enforcement agency anywhere in the country can get an mrap or an m-16 straight from the battlefield in iraq if they simply tell the d.o.d. they need it for border security activities, regardless of whether the agency is 10 pliles or thousands of miles from the border with mexico or canada. this amendment also means that campus police at local school districts and colleges can get the same mrap or m-16 straight from the battlefield in iraq if they tell the d.o.d. they need it for border security activities. last year republicans tried to include this language in the fiscal year 2015 ndaa. congress wisely chose to reject it.
5:57 pm
earlier this year, republicans tried to pass this language by burying it in their failed border security bill but fortunately the congress wisely chose to reject the idea once again. but here we are once again confronted with the absurd reality and this effort to give local police -- and i show a minute and 41 seconds, sir. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. johnson: i'm getting shorted on my time but what can i say? the chair: the gentleman from georgia was yielded a minute and a half. therefore, he is correct he was 11 seconds over. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. mccaul: mr. chair, i yield the remainder of my time to the gentlelady from arizona, ms. mcsally. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. mcsally: i support this amendment. it's a commonsense amendment that passed the house last year with bipartisan support because it simply provides the department of homeland security with increased resources and it saves the taxpayers money. this amendment makes a small
5:58 pm
change to current law regarding the excess property owned by the department of defense. d.h.s. and u.s. customs and border protection have benefited greatly from d.o.d. equipment in the years past. for instance, vehicle and dismounted explore take radar is providing better awareness in my border and allows border patrol to be smart about deploying their resources. the technology used by the dodd in afghanistan was transferred to -- by the d.o.d. in afghanistan was transferred to the c.b.p. this information is available to those on the ground to allow them to be more efficient with their resources. they detect subtle human movement on the ground and increases their aerial surveillance, enforcement and security to prevent potential threats from transnational criminal organizations illegally entering the united states. these organizations are trafficking drugs and money and people and weapons through the
5:59 pm
border and into our communities. since 2012, it has detected over 33,000 people moving across the southwest border. since 2006, this versatile platform has been credited with interdicting and disrupting over six tons of cocaine and 250,000 pounds of marijuana. c.p.b. has benefited from helicopters which allowed them to have greater visibility of this illicit activity on the border. this amendment is short. it's not about militarizing our border. it's about being a good steward of our taxpayers resources. thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from texas, mr. o'rourke, is recognized and the gentleman has two minutes remaining. mr. o'rourke: i yield 1 1/2 minutes to mr. castro from texas. the chair: the gentleman from texas, mr. castro, is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. castro: thank you, mr. speaker. when it comes to the border for many in politics there's no greater boogieman. the fact is that the border has
6:00 pm
more resources committed to it today than ever before. 21,000 border patrol agents. more than double what we had in 2004. we should not militarize the u.s. border with mexico or with canada. this amendment would not only be -- not only allow resources to go south and affect states like texas and communities in texas and arizona, new mexico and california, but would also allow these military objects to go into states like new york and washington state along our northern border. . there's also no indication that the department of homeland security has asked for these resources or indicated that they are either short staffed or undermanned when it comes to the resources that they need to deal with the border situation. painting our border as a war zone does a disservice to the
6:01 pm
men and women who live along our u.s.-mexico border and also the border with canada. i think that just as the 1033 program has had some troubling issues with respect to our local law enforcement, it's a bad idea to extends this program to d.h.s. with that i yield back mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas, mr. o'rourke, has 30 seconds remaining. mr. o'rourke: thank you, mr. chairman. everything that the proponents of this amendment have highlighted, the border patrol and the department of homeland security already have access to and already receive from the department of defense. as i said earlier, this amendment is redundant because that authority and that ability already exist. what it does do is create further anxiety and fear about the border at a time that is not warranted because of the record levels that we are spending on homeland security and the record levels of security that we have, the record low apprehensions that we see and the relative safety of the u.s. side of the u.s.-mexico border relative to
6:02 pm
the rest of the country. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. all time has expired. the question is now on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas, mr. mccaul. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from texas has asked for a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas, mr. mccaul, will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 21 printed in house report 114-112. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 21 printed in house report 114-112 offered by mr. hunter of california. the chair: pursuant to house
6:03 pm
resolution 260, the gentleman from california, mr. hunter, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. hunter: thank you, mr. chairman. we have a problem right now. and the problem is this. you have radical islamic terrorists in places where there's no u.s. law enforcement presence capturing and detaining and holding hostage american citizens. not american military personnel, but american citizens. in the past the problem has not been as exacerbated as it has been since 9/11. you have the f.b.i., the f.b.i.'s always had purview and has had jurisdiction over hostage cases. but the problem is, and i -- problem is in iraq, there's no f.b.i. in syria there's no f.b.i. in afghanistan there's no f.b.i. in war zones you don't have the f.b.i. what you have is the department of defense and different intelligence agencies, tracking the networks, know the networks, know who the bad guys are, know where the hostages may be and then in case we
6:04 pm
actually get good intelligence, the department of defense and our intelligence communities, those are the people that would act on the intelligence. not the f.b.i. if there's a hostage situation here at the capitol, the f.b.i. would take care of it. if there's a hostage situation in san diego or new york, the f.b.i. would take care of it. but again, not if it's isis or al qaeda or in somalia, yemen, iraq syria or any other war zone-type country. what my amendment does is makes sure that there's now a joint interagency coordinator under the president who works directly with the president and anybody else that they need to. we have to date five people five american citizens, that have been killed by radical islamic terrorists. we haven't freed one of them. not a single american citizen has made it home alive except for the trade that we did with the five terrorists from gitmo for the -- for private bergdahl. that's the only one. rest have died.
6:05 pm
60 days after this bill passes, both the house and the senate, the president is required to appoint an existing federal officer to coordinate rescue efforts for americans held by hostile groups such as isis or al qaeda. it also allows for congress to be informed, if you have a member from your district had who's one of these hostages -- who's one of these hostages you get quarterly reports from the f.b.i. or from this fusion cell on what's happening with your hostage. it also requires reporting to the different committees in congress that have oversight over this, what's going on with the hostages? because right now people don't really know. those of us here in this room, we don't really know. unless we reach out and contact them and ask for a special meeting. it shouldn't be the case. there's one thing i can guarantee this body, over the next 25 years, radical islam is not going away. you're going to have more americans taken hostage and we need to make sure that we at least have somebody where the buck stops. and this creates a person where the buck stops finally who can answer our questions from this body and can answer questions
6:06 pm
from the families and everybody else. with that, mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas, mr. o'rourke, seek recognition? mr. o'rourke: mr. chairman, i rise to claim time in opposition, although i am not opposed to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. o'rourke: mr. chairman, i yield such time as he may consume to mr. delaney of maryland. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he wishes to consume. mr. delaney: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to start by thanking the chairman and the ranking member for supporting this amendment. i want to thank my colleague from california for giving me the opportunity to work with him on this amendment. mr. chairman, the reason i care about the subject matter of this amendment is because one of my constituents was recently killed by a u.s. drone strike while he was being held in an al qaeda compound along the border in pakistan. obviously we weren't aware that he was held there. warren was originally captured over three years ago while he was doing work in pakistan on
6:07 pm
behalf of usaid. he was 73 years old. he spent his whole life in service to his country. working for usaid on foreign aid matters. he was a wonderful man and had a wonderful -- and has a wonderful family. across the last several years i work ved closely with his wife and his family in helping them try to influence our government to find warren. and the one thing i realized across the last several years, working on these matters that even though we have incredibly dedicated men and women who work at the f.b.i., who work at the c.i.a., to whork at the state department who work on -- who work at the state department, who work on hostage recovery matters, these efforts are not nearly as well coordinated as they should be. we do not have someone on point who wakes up every day with the mission of finding american hostages that are held in the middle east. and this amendment does this. by appointing and creating a hostage recovery coordinator,
6:08 pm
we will have that single person on point who will be able to take all of the resources of the u.s. government our technological resources, our intelligence resources, our military resources, and the resources of this congress and do a better job in identifying americans that are held hostage overseas by terrorists. it's incredibly -- it's an incredibly important thing to do. i saw firsthand in my experience, working with warren's family, and working with very dedicated people in our government, that the bureaucracy is getting in the way. the people are dedicated but they don't have the ability to cut through the bureaucracy and grab whatever resources exist in the government. what this bill does is empowers a person, an individual who can do that, who can grab whatever assets are needed in the u.s. government to help find hostages that are held overseas. which is why i support the amendment. as my colleague from california pointed out, they will also do
6:09 pm
a very important function which is to communicate and coordinate with the families. the families who are suffering like warren's family has for over three years, with the uncertainty and a lack of information about where he is. so i strongly support the amendment, i urge my colleagues to do the same. again, i want to thank my colleague from california for his leadership in this area and for giving me an opportunity to work with him. on behalf of my constituent warren. i want to thank, again, the ranking member and chairman for supporting this amendment. i yield back mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from maryland yields back his time. the gentleman from texas reserves his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. hunter: may i inquire about how much time i have, mr. chairman? the chair: the gentleman from california has two minutes remaining. mr. hunter: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to thank the gentleman from maryland for his work on this and he shouldn't have to and warren's family shouldn't have to go through what they go through. hopefully this makes it better. i'd like to thank the ranking member and chairman thornberry for supporting this as well.
6:10 pm
lastly, you know, to get something like this done, it takes people within the department of defense, within the system, who know -- who actually know what needs to get done. lieutenant colonel jason worked with my office now for two years on this amendment and he's someone who really cares. he's been working hostage stuff with about every government agency that there is and i just want to say he played a big role in getting this to where it's at now and i would urge my colleagues to support this amendment and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. o'rourke: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the president of the chair, the ayes have it -- in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to.
6:11 pm
for what purpose does the gentleman from texas, mr. thornberry, seek recognition? mr. thornberry: mr. chairman, pursuant to h.res. 260i offer amendments en bloc. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendments en bloc. the clerk: en bloc number two amendments 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 31 33, 34, 40, 43, 47, 48, 49 and 50 printed in house report 114-112 offered by mr. thornberry of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 260 the gentleman from texas, mr. thornberry, and the gentleman from washington, mr. smith, will each control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. thornberry: mr. chairman, in this en bloc package, which i encourage all members on both sides of the aisle to adopt,
6:12 pm
there are 14 total amendments. six of those amendments are from my democratic colleagues, eight are from my republican colleagues. there are a lot of important subjects that are in these amendments. as members on both sides of the aisle make contributions to the bill. and i hope that members on both sides of the aisle, when it comes to final passage if this en bloc package is adopted, that when it comes to final passage of the bill, they'll support final passage of the bill, so that their work can come to fruition. but that's what it takes mr. chairman. it is a support on final passage. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. smith: to claim the time in opposition, although i am not opposed. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: i yield myself three minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. smith: the chairman of the committee on a couple of
6:13 pm
occasions has made reference to the fact that if you have things in the bill it doesn't make any sense to vote against it because then you're basically nullifying your own work. then there was a statement earlier about how never before has a party asked for a no vote on this national defense authorizing act. he's actually wrong about that. in 2009 and in 2010 the republican party asked for a no vote on the national defense authorization act and in fact 160 republicans in 2010 voted no. that was virtually all of them. 131 voted no in 2010. so to now argue that, a, you shouldn't oppose the ndaa, because it supports our troops, after having opposed it in 2010 and in 2011, is very, very inconsistent. now they had their reasons. i think one of them was hate crimes was included and i think the other one was it repealed don't ask, don't tell that was included. but i would also venture to guess that as a very senior
6:14 pm
member of the armed services committee at the time, mr. thornberry had stuff in both of those bills. he can correct me if i'm wrong about that. but i would be stunned if he hadn't worked on those bills and had amendments in them. and yet he voted no on both occasions. so i hope for the rest of this debate we can at least dispense without argument, that notion that number one, no party has ever asked to oppose the defense bill, when in fact the republicans did it when they didn't like the substance and let me say and be clear on that, i completely respect that. that's the choice we as legislators have to make. you ask have to decide whether or not -- you have to decide whether or not a bill is worth voting for or against. but this notion that somehow you can never vote against the ndaa rings unbelievably hollow from people who have voted against the ndaa. and this idea that if you get something in the bill that you support, it doesn't make any sense to vote against it rings
6:15 pm
every little bit as hollow when at least the members who were here in 2009 and 2010 on the republican side of the aisle virtually all of them did exactly that. so this year what we as democrats are doing is saying that there is something about this bill that we don't like, that regrettably and i say this with all sincerity regrettably trumps the things about the bill that we do like. . the thing we don't like, it uses the o.c.o. fund to bust the budget caps. as secretary of defense carter has made clear that is a terrible budget within the pentagon and he has said he opposes it because of the restrictions it places on the department of defense. number two, it is disingenuous to claim you are keeping the budget caps and that the o.c.o. money doesn't count and outside
6:16 pm
of the budget caps. but lastly, if you simply let defense out of jail in this awkward way -- i yield myself an additional 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: and keep everything else under the budget caps, we will never get rid of the budget caps. that's the reason. and it's a pretty legitimate reason. if the republican budget holds we will never be able to get rid of the budget caps. so that is why we are opposed to it. i9 is a legitimate reason and you can disagree with it. let's stop with this, if you have an amendment you can't oppose the ndaa because it supports our troops when the very people making that argument when they had a reason did exactly that. but certainly, it is not consistent to make the opposite argument now. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his
6:17 pm
time. the gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry: i yield myself two minutes. i remember very well the instances that the gentleman from washington talked about. in one case, it was the senate that added hate crimes to the conference report of the ndaa when it came back from the conference and it is absolutely true that when that happened an issue outside of the military, came in conference. i and many others voted against it because we thought that was a mistake. it is also true that many of us on this side of the aisle voted against the bill the next year but that was because what was in the bill. it was related to the don't ask don't tell issue and how it was being handled. where you balance what's in it and what's not and the good and the bad, and we do that all the time. what's different about this case this bill is being held
6:18 pm
hostage to fix something else. i would like to fix obamacare but not vote against the ndaa until that happens. i would like a simpler tax code but i'm not going to vote against the ndaa. but trying to use this and the good it does for our troops to put political pressure on congress to agree with the president about changes in the budget control act that is different here. and my point is really very practical, if people gets amendments in the bill and the bill goes down, what happens to those amendments? that's what happens to any bill that goes down. the content of the bill is defeated. and i just don't think that makes much sense. mr. chairman, i would yield two minutes to the chairman of the committee on homeland security, the gentleman from texas mr. mccaul. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. mccaul: last week, i led a
6:19 pm
congressional delegation to the middle east to investigate the flow of foreign fighters in and out of syria and iraq. while in baghdad, i met with leaders in the iraqiey government including the prime minister of iraq. i'm concerned that the lessons of the maliki years in iraq are not being learned. sunni and kurds in iraq continue to be on the sidelines. sectarian divisions shall being inflamed by shia militants in sunni communities. the kurds are not getting access to the weapons they need from the central government quickly enough to fight isis. we need to empower the moderate sunni tribes. this act takes important steps to not only counter isis but hold the iraqi government accountable to the major constituencies in the country.
6:20 pm
specifically section 1223 of the bill before us ties assistance to the iraqi government to progress in key areas such as the central government addressing grievances of sectarian and minorities and reducing support for isis and ensuring that u.s.-supplied equipment and weaponry is making it to the security forces in iraq who need it the most to defeat isis. passage of this bill before us will go a long way in addressing the isis threat in the region and to the homeland. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: i yield myself 15 seconds, the o.c.o. spending that is the problem is in the bill. we are not just opposing this because of stuff that isn't in the bill. the o.c.o. without busting the budget caps is in the bill. and with that, i yield two
6:21 pm
minutes to the gentleman from california mr. sherman. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. sherman: i thank the chairman and the ranking member for including my amendment en bloc. section 3319 of the bill as reported from the armed services committee seeks to deal with a significant issue that has come to light regarding some commercial nuclear transfers. the potential for some u.s. reactor technology to be diverted by recipient countries to enable programs is a serious concern that needs to be addressed. section 3119 begins that process. my amendment is designed to improve it. there has been discussion in the press and in the senate foreign relations committee hearing on the china one two, three agreement that china will divert u.s. nuclear technology to its naval program particularly with regard to the propulsion of
6:22 pm
naval vessels. my amendment would streamline the process by which we would license technology under a one, two, three agreement. it would also provide that congress should be notified whenever there is substantial evidence that the one two, three agreement and nuclear agreement has been violated as perhaps when nuclear technology is diverted, including the propulsion of naval vessels. most importantly, we know that china has not yet taken the steps it needs to take to prevent proliferation. so my amendment adds a requirement that then whe are going to license the nuclear technology to beijing, we can only do that with a certification that china is taking the steps necessary to prevent proliferation to iran and other problem countries.
6:23 pm
i look forward to us using our nuclear cooperation with china on civilian matters to prod them into a nonproliferation policy that makes sense for the safety of the world. i thank the chairman and his staff for working closely with my staff in crafting this amendment and i thank the ranking member for including this in the en bloc, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry: i yield one minute to the member of the armed services committee, vice chairman of the subcommittee on strategic forces, mr. lamborn. the chair: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for one minute. mr. lamborn: i thank the chairman. i rise in support of my amendment number 26. this would add two important components to the underlying language on iran contained in the bill. first it highlights our concerns about the negative consequences of russian selling the s-300
6:24 pm
anti-aircraft system to iran. this will encourage iran's bad behavior. it adds language making it clear that no terrorism-related sanctions should be lifted as part of a nuclear deal with iran. we should not turn a blind eye to iran's continued sponsorship of terrorism around the world. in a later en bloc, i will have an amendment number 101 prohibiting military exchanges with iran. president obama treats our adversaries many times better than our friends. that's wrong and dangerous. my amendment will not allow people to be friendly with enemy regimes. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: i now yield two minutes to the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee.
6:25 pm
the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. jackson lee: let me thank the gentleman very much for yielding to me and let me thank the chairman of the full committee. i rise to support the jackson lee amendment number 64, and i'm very pleased to have the support of the ranking member and the chairman. this amendment is supported by mr. butterfield, the chair of the congressional black caucus, along with ms. adams and ms. barbara lee and focuses on historically black colleges, something i have offered on a number of occasions their ability to expand their capacity in skns, technology, engineering and math and includes hispanic-serving institutions, nat i have american colleges focusing on these entities on building their capacities by collaborating with the department of defense. we know the department of defense has myriad of
6:26 pm
opportunities for research and development, some of the research has been done on triple-negative breast cancer. we know that it is certainly well renowned that the internet had its early beginnings with the department of defense. many other powerful research finds and successes have come from that. and i would just say that this amendment that is now included in the en bloc and i thank the chairman and ranking member, now opens the doors for these institutions of higher learning to collaborate with their professors and students ack -- academicicallyly on science, technology engineering and math. i thank the gentleman. it enhances the educational opportunities for young people and moves forward the r&d by expanding opportunities to unique institutions who serve a very special population and educated these young people.
6:27 pm
with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry: i yield to the distinguished gentlelady from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen. ms. ros-lehtinen: i thank the chairman for including my amendment en bloc and the amendment is very simple and authorizes the secretary of defense to deploy assets, personnel and resources to south come and the joint interagencies task task force south to take on surveillance capabilities. terror groups receive a large amount of resources from the illicit drug trade and we are dangerously ill-equipped to attack these threats. it is in our interests to bolster our efforts to counter the nexus between drug traffickers and terror groups and to do so we need to give
6:28 pm
them the resources it needs to get the job done. not enough attention is being paid to the western hemisphere, our visibility and assessments of the threats in our hem is atmosphere are inadequate. and it jeopardizes our national security. and they are operating in our hemisphere and iran, russia and china are expanding their influence here in order to undermine our regional interests and i thank the chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: i yield one minute to mr. peters. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. peters: diversifying our fuel supply. many women and men have been
6:29 pm
killed in attacks on military fuel convoys. delivering technology so they depend on less traditional sources of fuel is a life saving strategy. we need a force that provides our war fighters with the tools to quickly confront the threats our country is facing. our military adapts to fight these new threats, we will need to increase our superiority and part of that is creating, developing and delivering new kinds of energy to troops in the field. my amendment, which is included in this en bloc package and i thank the chairman and ranking member asks the department of defense to report on its plans to merge two offices at the pentagon that handles the strategy. congress and the american people need assurance that these pentagon offices have enough staff to complete the mission we are asking them and seeing a desired increase inefficiency.
6:30 pm
i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. thornberry: i yield three minutes to mr. murphy for the purposes of a colloquy. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. murphy: i want to thank the distinguished gentleman from the house armed services committee for yielding and grateful for ranking member smith for the opportunity to discuss the issue of mental health treatment for our military service members. . we share a commitment to come to their aid, whether their wounds are a visible amputation or invisible problems of posttrauma stress disorder. the statistics, as you know, are sobering. 22 vets die by suicide each day. and more than 600,000 vets are diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder. delivering proper treatment for mental health is really a matter of life and death.
6:31 pm
we can provide these warriors with treatment and medication they need or we can continue to provide their families with folded flags and our condolences to their widows. but it is not enough to just provide a few limited medications, because people react differently to medication. some medications can work well with one person while resulting in adverse side effects to another with the same diagnosis . side effects may include drug to drug interactions, allergic reactions, weight gain with increased risk of diabetes. that's why doctors must be able to choose the medication that fits for the soldier. but when d.o.d. or the v.a. limits the choices, that put it's soldiers at risk. -- that puts soldiers at risk. the service member may stop taking medication and me deteriorate. we should not add to their risk. i would ask the chairman and the ranking member to work with me to ensure that the full array of fd -- f.d.a.-approved
6:32 pm
medications are available for our service members who need these life saving drugs. they fought for our country overseas, they should not have to fight the department of defense and the v.a. over here. chairman thornberry, i seek a commitment that we do not allow accountants to choose which medications are available for the psychiatric conditions of our service men and women. let the physician working with the service members or veterans make those decisions. mr. thornberry: will the gentleman yield? mr. murphy: i will. mr. thornberry: i thank the gentleman for yielding, for i have tremendous respect for his opinion and for his service that bears directly on these issues. i share the gentleman's commitment to do everything we can to improve suicide rates, to have better care for those who serve. i absolutely commit to work with the gentleman to get the best possible outcomes for those who serve. i know that's what the gentleman works for and all his capacities and it's what the committee wants to fork for -- wants to work for too.
6:33 pm
mr. murphy: thank you. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry: mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington reserves. mr. smith: i'll yield back the balance of our time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. thornberry: mr. chairman, hoping that all members support the bill on final passage mblings, i yield back the balance of my time -- passage, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendments offered en bloc by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the en bloc amendments are agreed to. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in house report 114-112 on which the further proceedings were postponed in the following
6:34 pm
order. amendment number 2 by mr. polis from colorado, amendment number 5 by mr. brooks from alabama, amendment number 15 by mrs. walorski from indiana, amendment 16 by mr. smith from washington, amendment 17 by mr. mccaul of texas. the chair will reduce to two minutes the time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinish -- the the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on on amendment number 2 printed in house report 114-112 by the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the nays prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 114-112 offered by mr. polis of colorado. the chair: a record the vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is
6:35 pm
ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
6:36 pm
6:37 pm
6:38 pm
6:39 pm
6:40 pm
6:41 pm
6:42 pm
6:43 pm
6:44 pm
6:45 pm
6:46 pm
6:47 pm
6:48 pm
6:49 pm
6:50 pm
6:51 pm
6:52 pm
6:53 pm
6:54 pm
6:55 pm
6:56 pm
6:57 pm
6:58 pm
6:59 pm
7:00 pm
the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 60, the nays are 363. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number five printed in house report 14-112 by the gentleman from alabama, mr. brooks, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. -- the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number four prinned in house report 114-112 offered by mr. brooks of alabama. the chair: those in support of the request for a railroaded
7:01 pm
society will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. this and the next three amendments listen two-minute votes. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
7:02 pm
7:03 pm
7:04 pm
the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 221, the nays are 22. the amendment is adopted.
7:05 pm
the unfinished business is the request for a railroaded society on amendment number 15 printed in house report 114-112 by the gentlelady from indiana, mrs. walorski on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 15 printed in house report 115-112 offered by mrs. walorski of indiana. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
7:06 pm
7:07 pm
7:08 pm
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 243, the nays are 180678 the amendment is adopted. -- are 180.
7:09 pm
the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 16 printed in house report 114-112 by the gentleman from washington. -- washington, mr. smith, on which further proceed wrgs postponed, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will deres. ig -- redesignate the amendment. the clerk: earment number 16 printed in house report 114-112 offered by mr. smith of washington. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
7:10 pm
7:11 pm
7:12 pm
7:13 pm
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 174 the nays are 249. the amendment is not adopted. the house will be in order. the committee will be in order.
7:14 pm
for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for the purpose of an announce. . the chair: without objection the gentleman is recognized. >> members are advised that we will continue debating amendments to the ndaa after this vote series and will complete consideration of the bill tomorrow. members are further advised that they should be prepared to vote as early as 9:30 a.m. tomorrow. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. without objection, two-minute voting will continue. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 17 printed in house report 114-112 by the gentleman from texas, mr. mccal on which further proceedings --
7:15 pm
mr. mccall on which further proceedings were postpone the clerk will dez egg nays the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 17 printed in nuss -- in house report 114-112 offered by mr. mccaul of texas. the chair: those in support of a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
7:16 pm
7:17 pm
7:18 pm
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 253, the nays are 166. the amendment is adopted.
7:19 pm
the chair: the committee will be in order. the committee will be in order. the committee will come to order. members, take your conversations off the floor.
7:20 pm
the chair: the committee will come to order. members, take your conversations off the floor. staff, take your conversations off the floor. the committee will come to order. members, take your conversations off the floor. for what purpose does the
7:21 pm
gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. thornberry: i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee do now rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. accordingly, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman? the chair: the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 1735, directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the committee chairman of the committee of the whole house reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 1735 and has come to no resolution thereon. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house
7:22 pm
in recess for a period of less than 15 minutes. you can watch the house live here on c-span when members gal back in. -- gavell back in. >> the new congressional directory is a handy guide to the 114th congress with colorful photos of every senator and
7:23 pm
house member, plus buy yow and contact informing and twitter handles. plus district maps a foldout map of capitol hill, and a look at congressional committee the president's cabinet, federal agencies and state governors. order your copy today. it's $13.95 plus shipping and handling through the c-span online store at c-span.org. othbrooks amendment. pposed the gallego amendment when it was consider comittee a rema oosed to brinng this issue of igration into the defse thorization bi. there are mbersn both sides of theie with a variety of positions whent comes immigration. but a defense authorization act is not the appropriate time or place to have this debate. remember the gallego language doesn't change any law. so a sense of debate where there can be no result that changes anything only distracts
7:24 pm
from the essential provisions in this bill that do matter to our troops and our nation's security. i notice that the chairman of the senate armed services committee has said publicly we're not going to do anything on immigration in the ndaa. that's my view as well. therefore, mr. chairman, i support the brooks amendment to remove this provision now so that we can better focus on the things that are estenrble -- -- essential for our troops and security. the chair: the gentleman yields -- the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: i yield one minute to the gentleman, mr. gallego. the chair: does the gentleman seek time in opposition in mr. smith: i seek time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman yields one minute. mr. smith: to the gentleman from arizona, mr. gallego. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. gallego: the dreamers in this country are deeply patriotic. if more -- for many, america is the only country they've ever known, the only country they've
7:25 pm
called home. this amendment would strike my amendment encouraging the secretary of defense to use his authority under existing law to enable daca recipients to enlist. if we approve this amendment we leave a deeply unjust status quo unchanged. right now, dreamers can be drafted into the military, but they can't sign up to serve in the military force they choose. that's simply unacceptable. these young people are americans in every respect except on paper. i fought in iact and i know that what really matters on the battlefield isn't whether you have the right papers, it's whether you have the heart to fight, patriotism for your country and the right character. mr. speaker, for the good of oour country i hope we defeat this deeply misguided brooks amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alabama, mr.
7:26 pm
brooks. virginia, chairman gd lath the chair: thgentleman is reize . goode: the houseuld noke action to legitimize the pridt's unconstitutional overreach regdimmigration. especially that of creating a programo defer removal for an entclass o hundreds of thoan of uawful ail yeps. e ntleman's ament is nessary preserve the congress'nstitutionally guaranteed poweover immiation law a whether and how to deal p with unlawful aliens brought to the u.s. as minors by their parents is a question that we should debate thoroughly. any legislative efforts regarding these individuals should move through regular order in the house, jew dish -- house judiciary committee which has jurisdiction over immigration law and plcy. legitimate concerns must be considered when discussing this issue, not the least of which is whether the parents who brought the minor to the u.s.
7:27 pm
illegally should be able to benefit from the illegal activity by becoming permanent residents based on the legal status of the minor they brought here illegally in the first place. as the policy currently stands, that will happen if any deferred action for childhood arrivals recipient enlists in the military. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from alabama reserves his time. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentlelady from the great state of washington ms. herrera beutler. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. herrera beutler: it's been said that there's no greater love than laying down your life for your friend and abraham lincoln said giving your lifer for your country is the last full measure of devotion. that's why i'm opposed to this amendment. i'm proud that in america citizenship means something. it is worthy to be earned. amnesty means giving it away and i don't support that. i do support the ability to
7:28 pm
earn citizenship. if a person has the conviction to take an oath -- twelve >> we take you lack to the house live as they work on defense authorization and amendments. the military is not a jobs program. if someone through their merit d hardorearns accence into that elitee is requesd. the speakepro tempore: pursnt t house resution60 and ru 18, the chair declares that the house in thcommittee of the whole house of the state of the unionor further conderation h.r. 1735 the gentleman from new york, mr. reed, kindly take the chair. the chair: the house is in the
7:29 pm
committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 1735, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2016 for military activities of the department of defense and for military construction to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole house rose earlier today, amendment number 17 offered by the gentleman from texas, mr. mccaul, had been dispossessed of. it is now in for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. rohrabacher: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 23 printed in house report 113-112 over by mr. rohrabacher of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 260 the gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher, and a member opposed each will control five
7:30 pm
minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. rohrabacher: a sense of the congress that dr. afridi a hero of freedom and deesens si is in prison and pakistan should release him from prison immediately. this same amendment was adopted by the house but stripped during the conference negotiations process. yes, a short of acknowledging this amendment was included in fiscal year 2015 ndaa joint explanatory statement, but that amendment itself was never stripped. i intend to request a recorded vote to demonstrate solid bipartisan support for dr. affridi so future conch ferries will take this seriously and include it in the 2016 ndaa. we need to make a statement in support of this american and
7:31 pm
international hero against terrorism. dr. affridi. we need to support him. if we abandon this friend, he put himself at great risk. no amount of aircraft crears will make us secure if we abandon our friends who stand with us. he is the pakistani medical doctor who will pinpoint the osama bin laden, who masterminded the killing of 3,000 people. he was imprisoned by pakistan's corrupt government. that should be considered a hostile act against the people of the united states. worst, after years of effort on the part of the united states to free him, the doctor continues to languish in a pakistan dungeon. yes, it is
7:32 pm
it is shameful we have abandoned such a heroic friend. all the while, we continue to pro-- provide weapons and cash to his captors. since 9/11 we have given pakistan over $25 billion, the majority of which goes to their military and security services which they use to murder and oppress their own people, people like the heroic baluch people or others who are struggling for their freedom under pakistan oppression. it is a grotesque is raid to suggest that our aid is buying pakistan's cooperation in the war on terror. or anything else. so long as dr. afriti remains left to suffer this brutal imprisonment this pakistani promise of cooperation means anything if they cannot get themselves to release such a heroic person who should never have been arrested who risked his life for us, how can we
7:33 pm
believe they are not supporting or even arming or supplying the world's worst and most bloodthirsty terrorists? pakistan has taken us for fools and shame on us for being so stupid for financing a regime that so blatantly despices us. my amendment will remind the government of pakistan and our own government that we have not forgotten dr. afriti and his courageous actions and will remind other brave allies of freedom as well as intelligence assets throughout the world that the united states will not forget them if they risk their lives for us. we will not turn our back and leave them to suffer a terrible fate because they were loyal to us. save dr. afriti. i ask my colleagues to join me in that statementism reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? >> i rise to claim time in opposition though i'm not opposed to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. langevin: mr. chairman, i
7:34 pm
have no speakers at this time so at this time i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. rohrabacher: i -- how much time do i have left? the chair: a minute and a half. mr. rohrabacher: let me just remind all of us as we try to decide how much money we're going to be spending on the military, let's remind ourselves that no matter, we can arm ourselves to the teeth, we can make sure that we have rockets and aircraft carriers and new airplanes, but if the people around the world cannot trust us if people put themselves in an alliance with the united states if we lose those people who can be intelligence assets, who will fight battles against terrorists like up in urbil which is going on right now, we have no chance at peace. we can't carry the load ourselves. i just voted against that add aircraft carrier because what we need to do is to make sure
7:35 pm
that we are enlisting the people around the world to carry their part of the load and the american people can't do this alone. but i will tell you if we abandon our friends like this, if we abandon dr. afriti we are putting ourselves at risk for it. it is shameful that we couldn't even get a statement in legislation last year supporting this heroic man who saved -- who risked his life to finger osama bin laden, the murderer, the man who slaughtered 3,000 americans. i ask my colleagues to join me in this noble endeavor to send a message to dr. afriti and send a message to our adversaries, the brutal terrorists around the world, that we'll stand with those people who are willing to stand with us and not forget them. with that i yield become. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the we is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
7:36 pm
the amendment is agreed. to mr. rohrabacher: may i get a recorded vote, mr. chairman. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 27 printed in house report 114-112. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk, number 27. the chair: the clerk wiz designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 27 printed in house report 114-112. offered by mr. lamb born of colorado. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 260, the gentleman from colorado, mr. lamb born and a member opposed each will control phi minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. mr. lamborn: thank you, mr. chairman. i recognize myself for such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lamborn: my amendment is simple. we should not implement a streety, the new start treaty in this case, unless we believe the other party to the treaty
7:37 pm
is trustworthy and will uphold their end of the bargain. if you don't truce vladimir putin, then you should vote for this amendment. let me explain why. right now, i don't believe the russians are trustworthy. we know that they are already violating three major agreements, the i.n.f. treaty, the c.f.e. treaty and the budapest memorandum. mr. putin also continues to deny that russian forces are engaged in combat in ukraine. because this amendment deals with treaties, let me expand on the details of these three treaties. first in 1994, russia, ukraine, the united kingdom and the united states signed the budapest memorandum this amendment included a commitment to quote, respect and i've got a copy right here, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the borders of ukraine and a commitment to quote, retrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of ukraine, unquote. clearly the recent invasions of
7:38 pm
crimea and eastern ukraine show that the russian federation is in violation of the budapest memorandum. second in 19 7, reagan and gorbachev sign the intermediate range nuclear forces treaty, or i.n.f. treaty. last year the state department released its annual compliance report which states, quote, the russian federation is in violation of its obligations under the i.n.f. treaty, unquote. third, in 2007, president putin announced he was suspending russian participation in the conventional forces in europe treaty or the c.f.e. treaty. this after years of russian violations of that treaty. today as we speak, the russian military continues to occupy ukrainian territory. russian noncompliance with treaties cannot be disputed. my amendment would prevent the continued reduction of our nuclear weapons as required by
7:39 pm
the new start treaty, unless the president can certify to congress that the russian federation is no longer occupying ukrainian territory and also certify that the russian federation is abide big their only gations under these three treaties. so if you think that the russian federation might not be trustworthy, please support this amendment. we should not unilaterally disarm and blindly assume that the russians will do their part. if the president can certify that the russians are doing their part on these treaties, then the funding to implement the new start treaty will be released. thank you, mr. chairman, i urge adoption of this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized.
7:40 pm
>> mr. chairman, i stand second to no one in my dislike of vladimir putin. mr. cooper: we despice his territorial aggression vis-a-vis the ukraine, but this is not the right way to get back at putin and russia. the gentleman is a very senior and distinguished member of the committee and he's my friend. i don't recall the gentleman offering this amendment in the armed services committee markup. did the gentleman? may i ask why? mr. lamborn: with the indulgence of the chairman, i thought it was better timing to do it in this venue because we had other things going on in the committee. mr. cooper: but we spent 18 hours in the committee, but the gentleman did not offer our committee the opportunity to discuss this. mr. lamborn: i didn't want it to be 18 1/2 hours. mr. cooper: mr. chairman, i would call this amendment by my
7:41 pm
friend from colorado the boomerang amendment. it does not hit the intended target. instead it comes back and hits us. how does it do this? his amendment as proposed would amount to a unilateral u.s. treaty violation. this would effectively blind the united states when it comes to looking at things like the number of russian nuclear weapons on intede-ployed intercontinental ballistic missiles. the number of submarine launch ba list exmissiles. counting weapons on board or attached to heavy bombers and confirming weapons systems conversions. these are the things that the new start treaty allows taos do with russia. we need the continued ability to look at those russian weapons systems and by cutting off funding for these essential national security activity the gentleman has hit the wrong target here.
7:42 pm
that's why this is the boomerang amendment. the gentleman pointed out that russia is a despick -- is despicable in so many ways. they probably violated the c.f.e. treaty and the budapest treaty but the gentleman is using the new start treaty to get back at those violations. he's picked the wrong target. so i have the highest regard for the gentleman but he proposed this last year. it was dropped in conference. instead it was substituted, we had an inquiry to the pentagon to get their opinion on this and they wrote us back and said, the new stark treaty facilitates conditions to make the united states more secure and its continued implementation remains in the national security interest of the nation. the pentagon went on to say that the new start treaty sustains effect i deterrents and increases stability in the u.s.-russian nuclear relationship and significantly lower levels of delivery systems anwar heads and finally the report said that the new
7:43 pm
start treaty provides the united states a vital window into the russian strategic nuclear arsenal. let's not blind the united states. the gentleman had a chance in committee to offer this. the gentleman offered this last year. and this is the response of the secretary of the defense strongly against the gentleman's amendment. the joint chiefs of staff are strongly against the gentleman's amendment. i would suggest that mr. chairman, this amendment is not in the national security interests of the united states. for the gentleman to propose a unilateral treaty violation of solemn obligation of this country is a serious undertaking. we need more than 10 minutes to debate such a serious breach. this is a treaty, after all only entered into in 2010 but it was entered into by a sol lloyd vote of the united states senate 71-26. many of us wish we were senators but we're not. the senate entered into that treaty solemnly this would be a grave mistake for this body to
7:44 pm
accept the gentleman's amendment. so i restemb the balance of my time and urge my colleagues to oppose the lamb born amendment. the chair: the -- the lamb born amendment. -- the lamborn amendment. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from colorado. mr. lamborn: it's not the right time to continue to unilaterally disarm under the terms we would be facing in the face of these violations. at this time mr. chairman, i'd like to yield a minute and a half to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee on strategic forces, representative mike rogers of alabama. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rogers: i thank the distinguished vice chairman for the subcommittee for yielding time. this the start treaty is the only bilateral arms control treaty i'm aware of that only requires bun party to reduce its nuclear weapons and that's the united states. while the other party russia,
7:45 pm
increases its stockpile. i have a prediction for you here today. if this truly is fully implemented by the united states prior to the 2018 deadline, we'll see russia cheating on the treaty immediately thereafter. mark my words, unless there's a u.s. president in office at the time putin respects, he will cheat on this treaty as soon as he gets a chance. the russians have no respect for the agreements they make. they have no respect for international law or sovereignty. they respect one thing and one thing alone. strength. i urge support of this amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does >> mr. chairman, with all due respect to my friends and colleagues, this was offered in committee and members were more conversant with these issues. mr. cooper: this isn't the right way, for the united states to
7:46 pm
commit a unilateral treaty breach, this is one treaty that they are adhering to. we may question the wisdom of that treaty, but the senate voted to confirm it and ratify the treaty. it would be a grave mistake for this lower body to challenge that judgment. but the key point is this. why blind the united states to counting the number of russian nuclear weapons? why defund those activities? don't we want to know how many are in their silos and nuclear submarines they have. why don't we want to know what is going on in russia. the gentleman is mistaken by trying to get back at putin. we need more insight, not less. so this is a boomer and amendment and attacks the wrong target. i would urge the defeat of the amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from colorado is
7:47 pm
recognized. mr. lamborn: i would conclude that we are being taken for suckers as we are expected to keep ip one end of a bargain and another country not keeping up with their end of the bargain. this is to protect ourselves. i urge adoption of this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it the amendment is agreed to. mr. cooper: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 32 printed in house report 114-112. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. blumenauer: i have an
7:48 pm
amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 32 printed in house report report 114-112 offered by mr. blumenauer of oregon. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 260, the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon. mr. blumenauer: this amendment is simple. it would move the funding authority for the navy's next submarine, the ohio class replacement, out of the so-called national sea-based deterrence fund and put it back where it be longs, in the navy's ship building budget. the amendment would not reduce funding for this project. it is a vote for sound budget process because the sea-based deterrence fund is no different than using any other slight of hand oversees contingency operations to get around the cost caps for other programs.
7:49 pm
this fund was created in the last defense authorization because the navy could not afford to at the same time build back up a $300-plus surface fleet and procure the 12 ohio class submarines. the problem with the deterrence fund is it doesn't solve how we pay for all of this. it simply would shift that burden onto the pentagon in some magic way. that's why the appropriators refuse to put money into the account after it was authorized. it doesn't take an accountant to understand if you buy the same amount of goods but charge them on two different credit cards, your debt will be the same amount. this fund will only lead to increased costs for the program and decreased transparency for manufacturers. the increased costs come from
7:50 pm
unintelligentering the program from the navy's ship building project. the tradeoffs that we expect, and ship builders will face increased uncertainty because no one has yet answered the question about where that funding will come from, setting them up for dramatic cuts once reality catches up with the budgetary gimmick. i ask my colleagues if this is a national priority, then make the case to amend the restrictions, find the room to approve the program through the traditional means. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> to claim time in opposition to the amendment. i yield myself one minute and 30 seconds. mr. forbes: mr. chairman, the armed services committee and especially the sea power and
7:51 pm
projection forces subcommittee is probably the most bipartisan committee in congress. we work very, very carefully to make sure we are defending and protecting the united states of america. that's why we will have bipartisan opposition to this amendment. if you are against nuclear deterrence you should vote for this amendment. but if you are for it, you should vote against this amendment, because this sea-based deterrence fund begins us down the path to fund the ohio class replacement. mr. chairman, i would like to remind this body that on these 12 submarines will carry 70% of the nuclear capacity of our deterrence for the united states of america. to not have this deterrence fund would be absolutely irresponsible. and it's something we have worked for and while it's true,
7:52 pm
it is not the complete solution that puts us on the road to this solution and reject this amendment. with that, mr. chairman, i would like to yield two minutes to my ranking member on the seapower and proper section -- projection subcommittee mr. courtney from connecticut. mr. courtney: again, i thank the chairman who it is true over the last three years we have worked together as well as our predecessors going back to gene taylor and roscoe bartlett who started this conversation. mr. speaker, when president obama signed the start treaty after ratification by the u.s. senate, one thing became crystal clear, the strasteegic mission became more critical than ever the implementation of the nuclear arsenal will rest more heavily on ballistic submarines.
7:53 pm
2/3 of the try add in the post new start aira will be sea-based and every secretary identified construction of the ohio replacement program if not the number one defense priority of the country. let's be clear, the ohio program will be built. that's not in debate. the question for congress is we will let this cost suffocate the rest of the navy ship building account. the sea power report in the underlying bill provides a solution to this problem, which will provide help both for our fleet and the industrial base. the underlying bill activates the fund passed last year on a bipartisan and bicameral basis to design the ohio replacement program as a responsible way. sponsors of this amendment call the fund a gimmick and shell game. it is not a gimmick and a clear precedent for this.
7:54 pm
congress has supported the construction of defense and navy ships to a similar fund which was created in 1993. and to this day, pays for construction of new oilers, troop transport ships and the like outside of the navy ship building account. we have done it before to prevent reoccurring upgrades. vote no on this amendment to keep the account and protect america's ship building industrial base. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does gentleman -- the gentleman from oregon reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. forbes: i yield one minute to my friend from rhode island, mr. langevin. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. lack mr. langevin: i rise in opposition to the blumenauer
7:55 pm
amendment and echo the comments of the chairman and the ranking member. the national sea base deterrent fund is crucial to our fluret. it provides bases outside for the survivable piece, a bill that came due in the 1980's in the buildup. these boats are essential. this is not just a navy issue. as secretary defense carter said this is a national priority. the deterrent fund avoids pressuring the navy out of badly needed investment. unless congress acts these boats will consume half of the projected ship building funding for a decade causing shortages that would echo for decades thereafter. congress has acknowledged these problems ahead and last year took a bipartisan, bicameral step modeled on mechanisms to help. this amendment does nothing to address the challenges at stake
7:56 pm
and moves us backward in policy as time marches on. i urge this amendment's defeat. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from oregon. mr. blumenauer: can i inquire as to the amount of time? the chair: three minutes remaining. and one minute for the gentleman from virginia. mr. blumenauer: who has the right to close? the chair: the gentleman from virginia. mr. blumenauer: mr. chairman, this is by no stretch of the imagination, a vote on whether or not one believes in nuclear deterrence. the united states has in its possession now and will continue to have far more nuclear fire power than is necessary to deter anybody in the world. we have not only the submarine -based weapons, we have 450 land-based missiles and we have the bomber fleet.
7:57 pm
it has been acknowledged repeatedly by studies at the pentagon that we can effectively reduce the amount of nuclear armaments we have by a third or more without jeopardizing our deterrence, our ability to destroy any country in the world many times over. the question is, how do we pay for what we have and where we're going. we have an amendment, which was not ruled in order, i'm sad to say, would have requested a c.b.o. study for what our costs are over the course of the next 25 years. most estimates are that we are in a pattern of spending a trillion or moreover the course of 30 years. that's big money no matter how you cut it. and when the process of whomoing our military, we have terms in compensation and benefits. we have a military that has been
7:58 pm
strained stretched and damaged by the ill-advised adventure in iraq. and now we are embarking upon, without doing the tough decision making about setting priorities, we are launching down a road here that would allow us to bypass the budgetary process and make appropriate tradeoffs, whether it's within the department of defense overall. but i would argue it would be in the navy budget. my amendment wouldn't stop going forward, the money involved would go into submarine construction. but it would inject a little bit of discipline here. now this doesn't tell us where the money is going to come from for the project and their account, the slight of hand, a new -- doesn't make it easier to finance, but makes it harder to
7:59 pm
track and eliminates the discipline as i say by forcing the navy and then the pentagon to be able to deal with it openly honestly and know where we're at. there's no reason to go down this path. i hope someday we have a spirited debate on the floor of the house about how much deterrence is enough. are the pentagon experts right that we can reduce it or do we need to go down the path spending $1 trillion? the truth is we are going to have to face some very difficult budgetary decisions. this proposal doesn't help us do that. it helps us to evade it. i urge adoption of the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from from virginia. mr. forbes: we need to pick priorities. this is not just a priority, it is the national strategic priority. if you ask the c.n.o. of the navy, he would say this is his top priority and as far as being
8:00 pm
open and transparent how much more can we be to begin to fund it now instead of waiting until midnight and say you need $95 billion. if you are against nuclear deterrence, then vote for this amendment and take away the capacity that we have for ships that will carry 70% of our nuclear deterrence. but if you believe as a bipartisan group of people, this fund is valuable this fund is important, these votes are vital to the national security of this country. we should reject this amendment. and i hope we will vote no. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. fobesfobes recorded vote. the chair: pursuant proceedings
8:01 pm
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon will be postponed. . it is now in order to consider amendment number 35 printed in house report 114-112. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from wyoming seek recognition? mrs. lummis: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 35 printed in house report 114-112 offered by mrs. lummis of wyoming. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 260 the gentlewoman from wyoming, mrs. lummis, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from wyoming. mrs. lummis: thank you mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. lummis: today i rise in spr -- in support of the lummis-sankey-cramer-smith amendment. to prohibit unilateral decrease of the alert status of our nation's icbm force.
8:02 pm
nuclear deterrence is based on the fundamental belief that a nuclear attack on the united states would cause us to retaliate. reducing the alert status would change the time needed to retaliate from as few as 30 minutes to three days. this makes it much easier for an enemy to strike first. wiping out the u.s. nuclear force before it can retaliate. for this reason mr. chairman, i urge adoption of the amendment. i would now like to yield one minute to my colleague from the state of montana a member of the armed services committee mr. zinke. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. zinke: thank you mr. chairman. i rise in strong support of this amendment that prohibits reducing the alert posture of the icbm forces. what's changed? are we safer today than yesterday?
8:03 pm
doctor kissinger, the former secretary of state testified before congress stating that, and quote, the united states has not faced a more diverse and complex array of crisis since the end of the second world war. on top of the threats we have seen since the framework of a nuclear agreement with iran that may give a legal pathway to a nuclear weapon. russia's announced it will lift its ban and sell missile systems advanced missile systems to iran and just this past week the reports of north korea -- that north korea tested a submarine launched missile-capable. i support this amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same. thank you. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mrs. lummis: mr. chairman. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. lummis: i now yield one minute of my time to the gentleman from north dakota,
8:04 pm
mr. cramer he lives in the state that houses an air force base. the chair: the gentleman from south dakota is recognized for one minute. mr. cramer: i thank the gentlewoman for yielding and the chairman and to those of my colleagues that have helped co-sponsor this important amendment. i think that the author of the amendment did a great job in discerning between three days and 30 minutes. 30 minutes is hardly what some have called a hair trigger. clearly we want to be at a strategic advantage and we did a tremendous significant disadvantage should we have to take three days. anybody who's been to one of these bases, as many of us have they've been in the bunkers, they've seen the control system, know that the protocols that are in place are anything but hair trigger. we can be confident that we
8:05 pm
both have the ability to respond quickly, but not the ability to respond too quickly. i urge a yes vote on the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. does any member seek time in opposition? the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. langevin: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself four minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. langevin: mr. chairman, while i applaud my colleagues for their attention to the icbm force, i think their attention is in the wrong place. first of all, the amendment is unnecessary, no one is even proposing reducing alert levels at this time. my concern here is that investigations d.o.d. reviews and press articles over the past few years have revealed that we have had significant problems in the icbm force, including the nearly 100 officers involved in cheating
8:06 pm
on tests, possession of narcotics, security violations, pervasive morale issues, an instance of an icbm officer who was later to have been found to be a gang member a man stripped for going on a drinking binge during an official visit to russia an icbm wing at an air force base failing the safety and security test and reported narcotics in which launch control officers violated security regulations designed to protect the icbm firing keys. now, these mr. chairman, are problems rising to the level of congressional attention. but instead of focusing on those very real issues affecting national defense, we're spending time on parochial concerns, quite frankly. there are no near term plans, as i said in my opening, to reduce alert levels and no f.y. 2016 funding requests to do so. so this is a solution, quite
8:07 pm
frankly in search of a problem. and a dangerous example of micromanaging an area of our national defense in which a very -- in which very small actions considered rationly and in isolation reduced the strategic flexibility of the commander in chief. in no other area is the possibility for cataclysmic error so real. let's not make deterrence harder. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from wyoming is recognized. mrs. lummis: mr. chairman, in recognition of the fact that the concern here is the unilateral decrease of the alert status, i now wish to yield the balance of my time to close to the chairman of the armed services committee strategic force subcommittee, the gentleman from alabama, mr. rogers. the chair: the gentleman from alabama is recognized for two minutes. mr. rogers: i thank the gentlelady for her amendment
8:08 pm
and urge its passage. as chairman of the strategic forces subcommittee, i understand the responsiveness of our icbm's is their most critical feature and their most significant contribution to our nuclear tried a. the u.s. has had icbm's on alert since the early 1960's. this amendment ensures that there is no change to the long standing bipartisan u.s. defense posture that icbm's kept on high alert levels. in recent weeks the usual groups who want to disarm the united states have been calling on the u.s. to dealert icbm's. we should continue to pay no attention to these tired, repetitive voices who long for the nuclear freeze days of the cold war when they were relevant. instead admiral haynie, the current commander of u.s. strategic command, said just last week that, quote, fundamentally -- he fundamentally disagrees, closed quote, with these calls to dealert u.s. icbm's. finally this amendment ensures the administration follows its own stated policy. in an april 25 hearing --
8:09 pm
april, 2015, hearing before my subcommittee, d.o.d. witnesses told us that the administration explicitly examined and rejected de-alerting our icbm's. so those who are arguing against the amendment are even further to the left on nuclear weapons than our global zero president. this is not just a missile state issue, this is a profound national security issue. de-alerting our icbm's is a terrible idea. i yield back and urge a yes vote on my colleague's amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from rhode island is recognized. mr. langevin: thank you, mr. chairman. at this time i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. blumenauer: i do appreciate the gentleman from rhode island setting the context here. we ought to be concerned about what's going on. my understanding is that they found out about the widespread cheating among them because they were investigating the drug abuse. i mean, there are things that ought to concern us.
8:10 pm
not something that to this point is not, as they just testified, a proposal on behalf of the administration, but the notion that somehow any action to reduce responsiveness is contrary to long standing policy and deeply harmful to national security and strategic stability in a crisis, there may welcome a time when we're able to make some changes that would remove a little bit of the hair trigger. i don't think that is something that we should prerudge -- prejudge. in the meantime, if people care about these missiles, they ought to make sure that they are managed in an effective fashion, that we take care of the long standing abuses and that we deal with the point that i made a moment ago, when we're launching on a trillion-dollar program over the next three decades, we ought to find out how much we need and how we're going to pay for it. thank you. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. lummis: we have concluded. we yield the balance of our time.
8:11 pm
the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from rhode island. mr. langevin: thank you, mr. chair. how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman has two minutes. mr. langevin: thank you. mr. chairman i'll just close by saying, as i said in the beginning, that this amendment is in search of a problem -- a problem in search of a solution. i would say that it's not necessary at this time, no one is proposing reducing the alert levels at this time and i would ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from wyoming. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is adopt -- is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition?
8:12 pm
mr. thornberry: pursuant to h.res. 260, i offer amendment en bloc. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendments en bloc. the clerk: en bloc number three, consisting of amendments numbered 37, 39, 42, 44, 45, 46 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 63, 64 and 66 printed in house report 114-112 offered by mr. thornberry of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 260, the gentleman from texas, mr. thornberry, and the gentleman from rhode island, mr. langevin, each will control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry: mr. chairman, i yield myself 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. thornberry: mr. chairman in this en bloc package, which i hope members will support, there are a total of 16 amendments. nine of them have been sponsored by republican members of the house, seven of them have been sponsored by democratic members of the
8:13 pm
house. they cover a variety of very important topics related to our country's national defense. and with all the hard work that went into writing and now adopting hopefully these amendments, i hope that all members who sponsored these amendments will see their work to its logical conclusion and that is adoption in a bill that passes the house. for it would assume fruitless to me to go to all the work on these amendments and have those amendments not part of a bill that passes. mr. chairman, at this point i'd yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from nevada, mr. hardy. the chair: the gentleman from nevada is recognized. mr. hardy: thank you mr. chairman. my amendment was inspired by the obama administration's proposal to establish a national monument in an area of nevada, directly under the air space of the nevada test and training range. my amendment is not about disputing landownership. my amendment is about
8:14 pm
protecting america's national security. and that means ensuring that our military has guaranteed access to land located beneath or associated with military operation areas for essential training and readiness activities. these activities are often tied directly to flight operations and can include anything from tactical ground parties pararescue training, ground instrumentation maintenance, and the list goes on and on. my amendment elevates the national security above politics and legacy projects. and gives our military the certainty it needs to adequately train and prepare for current and future conflicts. thank you, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from rhode island. mr. langevin: mr. chairman, i rise to claim time in opposition although i'm not opposed to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman has been recognized.
8:15 pm
mr. langevin: thank you, mr. chairman. i at this time yield two minutes to the gentlelady from nevada, ms. titus. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. titistitis thank you. i thank my -- ms. titus: thank you. i thank my colleague for the time. i rise today to bring attention to a provision that's included in this package, that besides being completely unnecessary, may have far-reaching impacts on the management of our nation's public lands. specifically this package contains language that would allow the department of defense to utilize certain public lands designated as national monuments for whatever purpose it chooses. . 16 presidents, both democrats and republicans from teddy roosevelt to george bush and president obama have utilized their authority under the act to designate land as national monuments. these designations have protected like san juan islands
8:16 pm
and the quarteries in the texas panhandle. collaboration with other federal agencies including the department of defense occurred. representing southern nevada, i have an understanding of the importance of our armed services and the training necessary to support national security missions. but the language included in this package ignores the fact that military operations continue at our nationalmon youments. look to oregon mountain, desert peaks in new mexico, which was created for overflight operations or the monument in arizona designated by president obama and to this day continues to serve as an example of how our national security and conservation goals can co-exist. closer to home the recently
8:17 pm
designated tuly springs fossil beds national monument was designed with two air force bases. if this provision were to become law it would see national monuments to the department of defense dismissing the long history of the armed services working to protect the mission. so instead of having the d.o.d. at the table to evaluate and inform the monument creation process on a case by case basis this would grant a veto over any future designations. if this legislation moves forward, i hope we can remove unnecessary provisions such as this one that are really just solutions in search of a problem. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from texas.
8:18 pm
mr. thornberry: i yield one minute to a member of the armed services committee, mr. zincey. zinc zinc i rise today in support of my amendment that will rename it to the captain john moran and reserve center. as many of you know, montana has a strong heritage service. captain moran and captain gault are an inexpiration. both of them received the medal of honor one in spanish-american war and one in world war ii. memorializing these two heroes by renaming the center will provide a daily reminder of the sacrifice that they made to this country. thank you, mr. speaker.
8:19 pm
the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from rhode island. mr. langevin: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. keating. mr. keating: thank the gentleman. most of us in this chamber have had the honor to meet and to get to know gold star families, those families that lost loved ones in the service and defense of our country and most of us on those occasions told those families if there is anything you can do, complete let us know. gold star families in my district came to me on an issue that really was something that was quite difficult for them at times and that's the issue that the access they had while their loved ones were alive was no longer there for military installations. the military installations would often have memorials to those that serve. they would have survival work
8:20 pm
shops and things that could help them and have military exercises and ceremonies. had greater meaning to them than perhaps any group of people. and they told me they had to relive the story by explaining who they were and why they wanted to come. i investigated this and found that the army had a pilot program that provided an access card for these institutions, these military institutions and that made the process so much easier for them. this amendment simply expands the pilot program and demonstrates congress' support for expanding these programs beyond the pilot stage and to all services. i hope we can move forward and actually see the implementation of this occur. i wanted to thank the chairman and i thank the ranking member for their support of this amendment en bloc and i wanted
8:21 pm
to express, i think the sentment of our entire body to be there in something that is a modest request, but an important one for our gold star families. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. thornberry: i yield one minute to the distinguished the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. costello. mr. costello: the army faces a complex environment and must deploy soldiers with the most advanced vehicles critical to the safety of our soldiers. the protection kits program provides our men and women in uniform the protection that minimally impacts performance. the army needs this program in order to improve to provide safety. it has greater flexibility and
8:22 pm
allows our soldiers based on the threat level and mission requirements. the use of these kits will allow the army to extend vehicle service life. it's important that congress provide the necessary funding levels for the army to meet their protection kits acquisition objectives and i urge my colleagues to support my amendment. i thank the chairman and the ranking member for their efforts in providing the necessary funding. mr. speaker, i yield the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from rhode island. mr. langevin: we have no speakers. i'm going to continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry: i'm pleased to yield one minute to the distinguished the gentleman from texas. mr. farenthold: i rise today to speak in favor of my amendment encouraging the department of defense to provide free wifi access. communications to family members
8:23 pm
back home is critical to our service members and also for their families who support them. our military members sacrifice time with their spouses and children and loved ones they leave behind. giving them the ability to stay in touch with their family through skype and face time and watch those important moments, makes it easier to copy h cope. family members play a crucial role to persevere through tough times. right now military members have to pay $60 a month just to stay in touch with their families. i'm encourage to work intermly to remove this burden from service members and urge support of this entire en bloc amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from rhode island. mr. langevin: we have no
8:24 pm
additional speakers at this time and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry: i yield myself the balance of the time i hope that all 16 members who have amendments will support this package as well as the logical conclusion which is to support final passage of this legislation and i yield back. the chair: you'll time has expired. the question is on the amendments offered en bloc offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the en bloc amendments are agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 38 printed in house report 114-112. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? mr. lucas: i yield myself such time -- the chair: does the gentleman
8:25 pm
have an amendment at the desk? the clerk: amendment number 38 printed in house report number 114-112 offered by mr. lucas of oklahoma. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 260, mr. lucas and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: i offer an amendment that will delist the threaten touchdown species over five years. this time will allow the five states that prarie chickens range, which has been endorsed by the fish and wildlife service. this doesn't delist the prarie chicken. if the department of interior thinks this plan hasn't worked, they can relist the prarie chicken. the wide-range plan will be effective not only in maintaining but increasing the population. the second portion of my
8:26 pm
amendment would delist the beetle. the beetle's population has skyrocketed well beyond the targets set in the fish and wildlife's own recovery plan. military installations have to ensure their projects do not infringe on the habitats of endangered species. any exercises also must meet the requirements. it is highly inappropriate for such excesses to military defense especially given the large populations and state-level plans. there are several military bases and dozens more in the estimated range of the american burling beetle that are affected. this would help to perform the critical functions that comprise our national readiness.
8:27 pm
i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? mr. langevin: mr. chairman, i rise to claim time in opposition. thank you, mr. chairman. i'm proud to yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentlelady from massachusetts, ms. strong as. strong strong this adds an unrealitied endangered act rider to the underlying bill. this will prohibit the chicken and the beetle as being listed as endangered species. the lesser prarie chicken was listed in march of 2014 and the american beetle was listed in 1989. given the broad language of this amendment, it is clear that d.o.d. lands are not the primary driver. if the sponsors wanted to
8:28 pm
protect d.o.d. activities and military readiness, they would have written the language as such. the amendment does not make a single reference to military readiness. in the department of defense does not believe this amendment is necessary. d.o.d. has given no indication that the listing of these species has negatively impacted military readiness. since being listed, neither have had critical habitats designated on d.o.d. land. look at this map. there is virtually no overlap between our military installations, which are in red and the lesser prarie chickens' range. if you look, they are separated in most instances by hundreds of miles with the green areas representing the current range of the species and the red areas are military installations. ford d.o.d. does not believe
8:29 pm
that the language included in the bill regarding the greater sage grouse is necessary to protect military red anyness either. the extinction of species, congress should allow the fish and wildlife service to make decisions in accordance with the law and the best viable time. congress should not further delay the scientific decisions by micro managing the process on a species by speaks yes, sir bases. the administration has indicated they would strongly consider vetoing this bill in part because of the nongermane provisions that would delay listing of the greater sage grouse. adoption of this amendment would add another provision to their list of objections. and the senate has agreed that harmful endangered speaksees act
8:30 pm
riders do not blong in the ndaa. could i have an additional 30 seconds. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. strong strong vote to protect the scientific integrity of the endangered species act. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yield back. mr. lucas: i wish to yield one minute to the gentleman from region of the country affected by this country the gentleman from oklahoma. . . money no want want -- no one -- mr. mullin: no one wants to protect habitat more than i do. i worked on this issue since arriving in congress because i believe we must protect our job creators and ensure the military has the ability to prepare itself against threats at home and overseas. the matters of national defense and readiness should not be subject to the schedule of
8:31 pm
agency bureaucrats and it's inappropriate that the military base within the proximate of these two species -- proximity of these two species must consider its habitat before developing new facilities or even planning training exercises. the people living in the states that contain the lesser prairie chicken and the american beetle, they know best how to conserve the species while protecting military preparedness, jobs land rights, and they've already taken steps to do. so i urge you to support this amendment and delist the chicken and the beetle and support our military readiness. mr. chairman i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from rhode island. mr. langevin: may i inquire how much time i have left? the chair: the gentleman has 2 1/4 minutes left. mr. langevin: with, that mr. chairman, i yield the balance of the time to the gentlelady from california, ms. speier. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. speier: i thank the chairman and the gentleman from rhode island. one of our most solemn duties
8:32 pm
in congress is dealing with eamericanning national security threats -- dealing with emerging national security threats. we eliminated bin laden. we're making progress in weakening isil. unfortunately my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have alert the -- alerted us to a new threat emerging deep in the heart of the western united states. a sort of feathery sleeper cell that just can't wait to disrupt our way of life. what is inspiring so much fear? the lesser prairie chicken. listening to tche bait, you'd think that -- listening to this debate, you'd think that the chicken is provide aid and confident to the enemy not just -- comfort to the enemy, not just live on the prairie and doing the occasional little dance. my colleagues across the aisle are trying to use the ndaa to do a little dance of their own. around the science of the endangered species act. the prairie chicken has not attacked our citizens, threatened our allies or
8:33 pm
disrupted our military operations. listing the prairie chicken as endangered is a scientific decision, not within the purview of congress and will have absolutely no affect on the department of defense operations. the worst that anyone can say about the prairie chicken is that it is really not a chicken but a grouse. this amendment has no place in the ndaa and i urge my colleagues to oppose it. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. lucas: i'd like to yield one minute to a lady from the great state of kansas, where they're working very diligently on the state level to repopulate the species. one minute to the gentlelady, ms. jenkins. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mr. jenkins: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise today in support of this amendment which would delist the lesser prairie chicken under the endangered species anth. i've long opposed this -- act. i've long opposed this listing
8:34 pm
for many reasons, because the rules unnecessarily restrict and hamper defense operations on federal land under this species habitat. in kansas we have a proud military tradition and a number of important installations including fort riley. an enormous benefit to fort riley is its huge training areas which have no encroachment issues and are some of the largest and most cost-effective in the nation. any similar ill advised listing affecting fort riley would potentially complicate this vital training area, amounting to nothing more than an overreach of the endangered species act, because it would imperil the actions taken by our military and hamper our local economies which these installations compliment. preservation effects do not have to come at a cost to our national defense preparedness. and i urge my colleagues to pass this amendment. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. time has expired in opposition.
8:35 pm
the gentleman from oklahoma has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. lucas: mr. chairman, i yield to the gentleman from new mexico a -- new mexico one minute another one of those states working very diligently to in-- to increase the population of these species in a very scientific way. the gentleman from arizona. -- new mexico. pearce pearce thank you. new mexico -- mr. pearce: thank you. new mexico has the canner been air force base and these chickens are in the bombing regions. for those people who say, this is just alarmists, remember 199 and 2000 when a -- 1999 and 2000 when almost all of camp bendleton was shut down when the marines couldn't get off the beach because of the endangered species. they instead flew their boats over to utah, set up stakes where the water would have been, and offloaded them there. so when we talk about the
8:36 pm
effect of the endangered species act, we to remember the past. remember it was the spotted owl that shut down 85% of the timber logging in this country, only to have the fish and wildlife service say a couple of years ago, oh, never mind, it wasn't the spotted owl, it wasn't logging that was cause them to go extinct. -- that was causing them to go ex tinlt. the fish and wildlife -- extinct. the fish and wildlife cut down jobs because of a species. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: i yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from utah, the chairman of the natural resources committee, an individual who has worked diligently on preserving all of our environment, mr. bishop. the chair: the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. chairman. whether one is talking about the sage grouse, which is yet to be listed, or the prairie chicken, which has been listed it is true that each of those does have an impact on the
8:37 pm
readiness of our military. it does have an impact on this and each branch of the military has said so. on one army base alone they are spending 1 1/2 million -- $1. 5 million a years -- $1.5 million a year. it would be nice and one would presume that each department would be talking about -- to each other about the impacts of their decisions. as chairman of the resource committee, i'm going to say that has not happened. it should happen with this amendment. i urge its adoption. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from oklahoma has 45 seconds. the gentleman's time has expired. all time has been yielded back from the gentleman from rhode island. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oklahoma. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. langevin: on that i request the yeas and nays. the chair: does the gentleman request a recorded vote? mr. langevin: i request a
8:38 pm
record vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 41 printed in house report 114-112. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 41 printed in house report 114-112 offered by mr. nadler of new york. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 260, the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, and a member opposed each will
8:39 pm
control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: without objection. mr. nadler: mr. chairman, this amendment would strike from the bill section 3121, which attempts to undermine our efforts to destroy unnecessary nuclear weapons that have already been retired and scheduled for dismantlement. section 3121 of the bill was a last-minute addition to the ndaa which is both totally unnecessary and counterproductive to our long terrible national security goal. our armed forces and national security administration oppose this provision to eliminate the dismantlement of surplus nuclear weapons. section 3121 does three things. first, it caps at $50 million a program that is scheduled to cost about $50 million. thereby having no practical impact whatever. second the section prohibits for five years the scheduled
8:40 pm
dismantlement of the w-84 nuclear warhead. the w-84 warhead was first retired back in 2007, eight years ago. and was recently retired again in favor of keeping the w-80 for the long range standoff option. so there's no reason to keep the w-84 around any longer than necessary. storing and securing unneeded and retired nuclear weapons wastes a large amount of money in maintaining them. third, there's a large queue of ward heads waiting for dis-- warheads waiting for dismantlement. there are retired nuclear warheads scheduled for dismant thement. storing these warheads costs money. why would we want to slow down the process of dismantlement of retired warheads? we have about 5,000 active nuclear war heads 2,000 would suffice to destroy the entire world. why waste money retaining retired warheads?
8:41 pm
by seeking to limit nuclear disarmament -- dismantlement, rather this section of the bill sends the wrong message to the rest of the world about the value of nuclear weapons it undermines our efforts at nuclear nonproliferation. we have promised at part of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty to reduce our nuclear warheads eventually to zero. the other nuclear nations have made the same promise. and on that basis the nonnewby -- non-nuclear nations have undertaken not to develop nuclear weapons. by delaying retirement -- dismantlement of retired weapons we're sending the wrong message of nonadherence to the nonproliferation treaty. contrary to the claims of the author of section 3121 this section of the bill is not about unilateral disarmament. all of these weapons have already been retired and are scheduled to be dismantled. this section, by delaying dismantlement by five years, would simply waste a large sum
8:42 pm
of taxpayer money, would not contribute at all to national security because having retired weapons in the storage bin doesn't help national security, and would send the wrong message on nonproliferation. it's a total waste of money for no useful purpose whatsoever. i urge all my colleagues to support the amendment to strike section 3121. we must not needlessly restrict the defense department's ability to determine the appropriate rate of warhead dismantlement, of dismantlement of retired and surplus warheads. i urge the adoption of this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. does the gentleman from alabama wish to rise in opposition? >> yes i rise in opposition to the gentlelady's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: without objection. mr. rogers: i strongly oppose this amendment because it strikes a section that helps us set priorities in defense spending. dismantling u.s. nuclear weapons is not a priority.
8:43 pm
getting nuclear modernization done is the priority. two weeks ago secretary of state kerry announced that the n.p.t. review conference, that the u.s. would accelerate its dismantlement of nuclear warheads by 20%. so while russia continues to make overt nuclear threats to the u.s. and our allies, we accelerate nuclear disarmament. this is insane. let's be clear about one point in particular. section 3121 of the underlying bill does not contradict any u.s. treaty obligations. current arms control treaties do not require the u.s. to dismantle any nuclear warheads. in the f.y. 2016 budget request, nnsa detailed it planned to focus the next five years of dismantlement work on warheads retired prior to 2009. section 3121 provides them enough money to do so and it does not restrict its work on pre-2009 warheads. section 3121 allows the administration to carry out the dismantlement plan it described in the f.y. 2016 budget request. it simply prevents the
8:44 pm
unilateral disarticlement and acceleration proposed by secretary kerry, which is a misguided attempt to appease those who would disarm the united states. section 3121 also prohibblets dismantlement of certain u.s. nuclear cruise missile warheads for five years. this is a prudent measure because russia is in plain violation of the i.n.f. treaty through its flight testing and deployment of ground launched intermediate range cruise missiles. simply put, we should not unilaterally disarm the united states cruise missile warheads when russia is building and deploying its own cruise missiles in direct violation of the i.n.f. treaty. as russia continues to make threats, ac settle rating the u.s. nuclear weapons dismantlement by 0% is the wrong meaning to send. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: how much time do i have?
8:45 pm
the chair: 90 seconds. mr. nadler: and the other gentleman? the chair: three minutes. mr. nadler: i will reserve. the chair: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from alabama wishes to -- mr. rogers: two to years twold minutes to mr. bishop the gentleman from utah. the chair: the gentleman from utah is recognized for two minutes. mr. bishop: thank you. as a member of the strategic forces why would rerush into unilateral diss armament and russia has not lived. the section prohibits the diss armament of nuclear warheads for five years to see if russia will leave up to its agreement. if you are actually going to get rid of a weapons system, for heffens sake get something for it. that is why this is the wrong policy with the wrong message
8:46 pm
that would go to our potential adversaries and the wrong message that would go to our allies who are waiting to see if the united states will retreat. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: the central flaw in the argument against this amendment is we are not talking about disarmament unilateral or otherwise. all they do is waste money to maintain them. what this amendment says is do not prohibit the administration from dismantling already retired weapons. talking about the threat from russia ok, there is a threat from russia, i don't deny that. and modernization of nuclear weapons should be a priority. that's a separate issue. dismantling nuclear weapons doesn't help us bsh maybe it
8:47 pm
helps us for freeing up money. it is a waste of money to retain retired weapons. if we should have more active weapons that is a different question. once we retire the weapon, it costs money to maintain it and also is a potential target for a terrorist to grab it or get the plutonium out of it. retired warheads should be dis mantled. the question is how many do we need. that is a separate topic. dismantling a retired warhead just saves money and a retired warhead doesn't help us against the russians. it is a question of not wasting money. spend money on modernization. why waste money on keeping retired warheads in the storage bin. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from alabama is
8:48 pm
recognized. mr. rogers: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: two minutes. mr. rogers: i yield to mr. lamborn. mr. lamborn: i thank the chairman of the subcommittee. you know, president obama is doing something that much of the country, including myself and many of us on this side of the aisle is using his pen and the phone to go around congress and do things by executive order or unilaterally if you might agree with that. to take that same approach with our nuclear stockpile, our strategic defense is not a good idea. so i totally want to resist this amendment. i urge everyone to vote no. secondly, as has been pointed out, the new start treaty is i believe flawed, but what it does is require us to reduce our stockpiles and russia to increase it's stockpiles. and countries like china are not
8:49 pm
even included in that treaty. so when we are already on a path to seriously reduce the number of our warheads and consider, unilaterally cutting them further, that is the height of fawley. we should resist that amendment and vote no. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from alabama has one minute remaining. mr. rogers: i yield one minute to mr. thornberry. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thornberry: i appreciate the chairman of the subcommittee for yielding. it is in my district where this dismantlement occurs. we are missing one key point but mr. rogers raised it earlier. we have a limited number of people, facilities and dollars and we can use them to take things apart or use them to help them modernize our stockpile so
8:50 pm
we can be safe and reliable and providing that nuclear deterrence. and the concern is based on what secretary kerry said, that this administration is going to put more money and people and facilities into taking things apart than they should. they got their priorities wrong. so this amendment or the underlying provision of the the gentleman from alabama tries to set those priorities straight. and that's what's important. we can't do everything. we have to set priorities and the priority ought to be defending the country especially in what china and russia continue to do. this amendment should be rejected and the underlying provision supported. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it -- mr. nadler: mr. chairman, i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: does the gentleman
8:51 pm
ask for a recorded vote? mr. nadler: i do indeed. the chair: further proceedings on the the gentleman from new york will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 52 printed in house report 11 i-112. for what purpose does gentlelady from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: printed in house report 114-112 offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 260, the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. ms. jackson lee: let me thank the chair and the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from texas and the ranking member the gentleman from washington and the manager who is managing, my dear friend
8:52 pm
from rhode island, for their leadership on many, many issues. all of us have encountered the very energetic small business community. included in that are women and minority-owned businesses. in the state of texas, we are very much engaged with our military bases. over the years we had any number of them, very large facilities in my own communities, we have the ellerton base and added a number of assets. this amendment speaks to the compatibility between the department of defense and its needs and the businesses and ask the secretary of defense to outreach to these minority, women and small businesses as a way of ensuring the growth of their businesses and utilization of their services for that of the d.o.d. the jackson lee amendment will
8:53 pm
help the united states maintain the diverse and powerful work force. why? because our small businesses located in our neighborhoods and in our communities are there to create opportunity and to create jobs. as a practical matter, the d.o.d. has a discretion whether a contract can be insourced or outsourced. we ask them to look at small businesses. since march of 2009, certain federal contracts that were formerly completed by civilian contracts would be looked at in a different way. we ask that the assessment of the value of small businesses be considered and in particular, be considered on how many jobs are created and also the importance of ar healthy and diverse small business community. i would ask my colleagues to support this amendment and i want to say in my home city of houston, texas is home to
8:54 pm
60,000 women-owned businesses and thousands upon thousands of hispanic businesses. just this past week, i visited two manufacturing companies, one a member of the houston hispanic chamber. i ask my colleagues to support the amendment and reserve my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. mr. thornberry: i claim the time in opposition although i'm not opposed. i would reserve then the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. without objection, the balance of his time. the gentlelady from texas is recognized. ms. jackson lee: let me thank the chairman for his kindness. may i ask the chairman how much time remaining? the chair: two minutes. ms. jackson lee: i yield one minute to the distinguished the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis. the chair: the gentleman from colorado is recognized.
8:55 pm
mr. polis: there is tremendous talent and the frurel spirit and to enensure that we have the ability to take advantage of that great diversity which is america's asset, it is so important to make sure that women and minority entrepreneurs are able to be in a position to supply and work with our united states military. i'm proud of the steps that the military has taken. but we can do better. and as a former entrepreneur myself, i know how important it is to make sure we develop the next great generation of american companies and suppliers that reflects the diversity of the military and the diversity of the american people. women and minorities are empowered. and that's something i know that the gentlelady from texas holds dear and i hope we can adopt this will amendment to further that end and i yield back.
8:56 pm
the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. thornberry: i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady from texas is recognized. ms. jackson lee: let me conclude by thanking the gentleman from colorado. it evidences the appreciation from small businesses reaches from texas to new york, to california to florida and i would ask my colleagues to support this amendment. with that, let me conclude by saying i want to thank my colleagues for my amendment being in en bloc amendment 4 and i will put a statement in the record on amendment number 75. i ask for support of amendment number 52 and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman is recognized. mr. thornberry: i want to thank the gentlelady for offering this amendment and just mention to my
8:57 pm
colleagues that there are a number of provisions in the underlying bill that try to help encourage small businesses to participate with the department of defense, because i completely agree with the statements that were made that that is where much of the innovation occurs in this country and the bureaucracy in our acquisition system makes it hard many times for small businesses to contribute. so i think that idea and especially the small businesses targeted by the gentlelady's amendment is appropriate. i hope mr. chairman, that all members, the supporters of this amendment and those who are concerned about small businesses having some greater opportunities to participate in the department of defense procurement will not only support this amendment but final passage of this bill because that's the only way this amendment can actually become law. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from
8:58 pm
texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. thornberry: pursuant to h.res. 260, i offer amendments en bloc, en bloc package number four. the. the clerk: consisting of amendments numbered 58, 60, 61, 65 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 75, 79 80, 81 and 82, printed in house report 114-112 offered by mr. thornberry of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 260 the gentleman from texas, mr. thornberry and the gentleman from rhode island, mr. langevin will control 10
8:59 pm
minutes. mr. thornberry: i'm pleased at this point to yield one minute to the distinguished the gentleman from illinois. >> it is determining whether that company can qualify for loans and federal contracts and other assistance. there are times that the s.b. sets an inappropriate standard. it can deny critical access and assistance and contract opportunities. my bipartisan amendment offered with mr. connolly from virginia builds upon the previous efforts to improve the standards process. this will empower the american job creators to appeal to the
9:00 pm
s.b.a. when they believe they receive an inappropriate designation. this will spare small business having to engage in time-consuming lawsuits to make their voice heard. my amendment is supported by the small business association the national defense association and other small business organizations. thank you, and i yield back. . the chair: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized. mr. langevin: thank you, i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jackson lee: let me offer my appreciation to the chairman and ranking member for including my amendment, number 75 in en bloc amendment number four. i want to thank mr. langevin, we both serve on the

17 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on